TRUTH

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:21 pm

as per the thread on the Think-tank initiated by LF

TRUTH .. What is it? What does it mean?

The dictionary describes 'truth' as: wrote:'being true, loyalty, accuracy, integrity, what is true. true statement, account, belief, etc. reality, fact etc..

Truth is subjective yes? So then how can it be integitous? Accurate? Real?

So then maybe 'truth' entertains a broader scope of meaning than the dictionary provides .. what is truth? what is the concept of truth? and are these two things different?

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:25 pm

Once I'm done dying from whatever virus I have, I'll give a reply to the thread, but I do have enough strength left in these bones to wonder "what exactly did I initiate?"

Post by **Skyweir** » Mon May 19, 2003 5:38 pm

trouble as usual

lol .. the responsible thread .. initiated by yourself was called .. 'Verification needed' .. or something similar .. where misleading reporting and a misrepresentation of events were discussed .. and the question arose .. does a little embelishment really hurt anyone? or something similar ..

hence the subsequent tangential exploration into the notion of 'truth' ..

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon May 19, 2003 8:52 pm

My definitions may differ from the dictionary, but I don't know how to keep things straight with the dictionary ones.

I define fact as those things that are detectable, measurable, verifiable, and that we agree upon. The speed of sound and light; the height of a tree or building; the strength of gravity... These, and MANY more things, are facts. Other facts, like mathematical ones, are derived. Within any mathematical system, there are things that can be proven to be true, because the rules of the system are defined.

Truth is what those facts imply. And that is different from person to person. Since religion has been a big topic lately, here's some examples. Do all the intracacies and coincidences of the universe show that an intelligence must be behind the universe's existence? Does the fact that things within this universe operate under the laws of cause & effect mean that the universe itself must also have been caused? No facts can prove these things. Each person's experiences and psychological makeup point them one way or another, and they decide what truth they believe.

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:35 pm

Want to give me a 3rd sickness? I've already had one (computer and my own self). Religion again?!

Now I gotta make another thread, since my reply doesn't fit this one.

Post by **Bannor** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:36 pm

Hey, if you're really in need of some weird idiocy on "truth" contact me, and I'll tell you where you can get some real died-in-the-wool sophists. When I took them to task about calling the LotR a "true myth," (I had the nerve to say that something can not be true and a myth at the same time), I was harangued by several who spouted, "What is truth?" Then Plato was paraded aound for several posts.

Am I crazy, or is there such a thing as a "true myth"? Do these people at this forum think that the Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings really happened? Did I miss something?

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:51 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:Does the fact that things within this universe operate under the laws of cause & effect mean that the universe itself must also have been caused?

Sure it was caused! What isn't? Trouble is--especially with us Doubting Thomas humans--that we don't rightly know what caused it! Boy, I sound like I was dropped on my head as a child.

Anyway, we won't settle on one choice, knowing for all these years and years, despite that, that there can only be one explanation for the universe and our sorry human arses. There are a million choices, too: Big Bang, Big Chicken Laid The Big Egg, God Said "Let there be light", Little Richard Said "Let there be Rock". Lookit--whatever! Just so happens my choice--the Big Bang--sounds the most feasible. It's so nifty and convenient, don't you think, that God is automatically without our universe? What is he, anyway? If he's not a cause and effect, what the sam hill did he come from? What'd he do before he made us, in the eternity before our existence? Was he so omnipotent and great and wonderful he just sort of sat in his greatness and was like, "Oh, I don't need anything else", and then all of a sudden he went, "Oop, I'm lonely, let's make some followers."

That previous sentence, “Well then where did God come from”, sounds like something a kid might one day ask his parents, to which mine replied, “Don’t ask questions like that.” Come on that’s crap--if Christianity has itself all figured out, then it’s at least open to a little debate. Not trying to sound bitter here (although I am and have probably sidetracked this thread).

Fist and Faith wrote:No facts can prove these things.

No known facts. Give us some time; we're a very young intelligent species.

It’s all very much a game of claims, if it's not proven. Like, I could say, "The spastic monkey of Neverness made the universe," and my claim is just as credible, technically, as the existence of God, or Allah, or D. B. Cooper.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Tue May 20, 2003 1:36 am

Lord Foul wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:No facts can prove these things.
No known facts. Give us some time; we're a very young intelligent species.

True enough. But the "truths" I mentioned cannot be proven or disproven. Some people believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing god. Such a being can certainly hide its existence from us forever. If we never find evidence of it, we can't know if it is hiding, or if it doesn't exist.

Nor can we know if the universe needed a cause. It could be that it sprang into existence without cause. We've never witnessed any other universes coming into existence, so we can't compare. The Big Bang is an extremely strong possibility. Plenty of evidence - some of which was theorized, then found when specifically looked for - points to it. And the very nature of the Big Bang erased any possibility of finding evidence of whether or not anything existed or happened before. No evidence of a cause can exist.

And sorry about bringing up religion. It was just the topic of the week. But the various facts that make many believe that the Big Bang is a truth do not make everyone see this truth. (My definition of truth, that is, not the dictionary's.) This is not a religious question. Some who think the BB happened think that God made it happen. Others who think the BB happened don't believe in any creator, and think it was spontaneous. But I'm talking about whether you think the evidence sufficiently proves the BB or not.

Post by **danlo** » Tue May 20, 2003 2:24 am

Corruption said:

Like, I could say, "The spastic monkey of Neverness made the universe,"

I would read the book first and keep ur spastic mouth shut...

(yes I really am pissed...u're treading on scared ground...)

Post by **Skyweir** » Tue May 20, 2003 4:32 am

ack! why do we always have to focus soley on religion??

'truth' has a much broader scope than this ..

if we look at 'truth' as an 'absolute' in terms of religious view points?? .. its impracticable to infer imho

However .. 'truth' as a notion .. as a concept ..

as a measure .. as a standard .. can be infered and defined .. as a general concept first before launching into the contestable question of religious 'truth' ..

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Tue May 20, 2003 2:45 pm

Poor danlo--give a sick man like me a chance! I thought you'd be glad your 100th member at Ahira's Hangar, a man you once called the "gentleman from Georgia" brought up Neverness, just for fun. Heck, danlo, I could have said, Middle-Earth, television, John Lennon, or Bob Hope in substitute for my completely random choosing of Neverness. Okay, so I used a sentence in which somewhere, inexplicably a spastic monkey and the fictional word "Neverness" landed together. Big flippin' deal.

I mean, really, how'd I "piss" on Neverness? It's not like I have one of those bumber stickers you put on the back of a truck with the kid pissing on a word like, "Chevy", "Ford", etc. Oh well, one of us is blowing this out of proportion--or maybe both of us. Funnily enough, I sort of knew this would happen, and I'm sorry for that. Again, sorry if I offended you (though I don't sound it), and don't read the bottom stuff if it was religious discussion that sorta got ya off too. *Covers it up*

Such a being can certainly hide its existence from us forever. If we never find evidence of it, we can't know if it is hiding, or if it doesn't exist.

Spoiler

Heh, what does it have to hide? And why'd it make us to just go and hide away? Sounds like something an uber-bad parent would do. "Thanks for the life God--no thanks for the answers or child rearing." So, what's he doing now? Watching us like a bunch of sea monkeys? We some cosmic joke? Again, it’s always convenient (and an unproven statement) when someone says, “oh, he’s ghosting out there, somewhere, but we’ll never, ever know.” Okay, my argument's becoming circular, so *kills religion discussion and moves on with TRUTH*

Post by **danlo** » Tue May 20, 2003 5:50 pm

Ur apology is VERY much appreciated--whether random of not--and I can sorta c it as a compliment--I have never seen any1 on this board ever use some1's elses prize books in that context. Mayb I was more surprized that angry--(fyi there r no monkeys on Neverness)

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Tue May 20, 2003 7:21 pm

Skyweir, I don't know how we can discuss a concept like truth without giving any examples of what we mean. I gave a few examples of what I mean, not all of which were religious in nature. If you'd care to discuss them, or offer some of your own, or discuss truth in some way that does not need specific examples, I'd be more than happy to join in.

Post by **Skyweir** » Thu May 22, 2003 4:02 am

F&F .. I enjoy religous debates as much as the next fellow .. but this topic as you acknowledged yourself was not intended to be religous.

F&F wrote:This is not a religious question.

It was an exploration into the conept of 'truth' .. I see that it is almost inevitable that 'belief' must enter the conversation.

So in essence you have established that 'truth' is a subjective term dependant upon the wielder. This thread gained its inception from LF's 'Need Verification' thread at the Think-tank .. in relation to persons of public influence disseminating mis-information .. and how that really matters? if indeed it does?

Some view points may propose that .. it doesnt matter if a greater good is served .. the utilitarian stance .. dispatching misinformation is acceptable to the degree that a benefit can be gained for the greatest number of people ..

Then the concept and value of 'truth' is side-stepped in the pursuit of some social or global utitlity ..

If religous references and examples need to be made .. then it would be preferable that they were made respectfully .. as there are posters who may be offended by the off-handed approach that some have taken to these issues.

I have received some mail as a mod that have expressed some concern with the way some have taken to put down and ridicule those who present their personal views on this topic. No one should be ridiculed for what they believe .. and everyone needs to respect and have regard to others pov.

Post by z » Thu Mar 18, 2004 2:52 pm

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

TRUTH

TRUTH